A Fascinating Program - Making An Original Professional Tube Mic w/o Compromise

[Fran Guidry]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Interesting and I have to say that even on my lap top and even though it's You Tube sound
There is a distinct difference in the sounds on those clips and honestly the I am glad I bought a Schoeps

I hope you didn't think I was offering those clips for any insight they might give into mic performance. Comparing an omni taped to the top of the guitar and tracked outdoors to a Schoeps cardioid in a treated room is _not_ a comparison of mics. Getting "information" about mics from a comparison like this is absurd, sorry to be so blunt.

To compare mics we need to reduce the non-mic differences to a minimum. That means same source at the same time in the same place at the same level and without labels.

Take a moment to download the clips in this post: http://69.41.173.82/forums/showthread.php?p=3384484 One of those is a Schoeps. One is the much reviled Rode NT1a. One is the much praised ADK A6. How obvious are the differences?

Fran

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Fran Guidry

I hope you didn't think I was offering those clips for any insight they might give into mic performance. Comparing an omni taped to the top of the guitar and tracked outdoors to a Schoeps cardioid in a treated room is _not_ a comparison of mics. Getting "information" about mics from a comparison like this is absurd, sorry to be so blunt.

Fran

No kidding Jackson?, sorry if the tongue in cheek aspect of my post was lost. But you have made exactly the point, you know the one Chris was trying to make about the validity of most, on line comparisons. And since you brought up speaking bluntly. Honestly, comparing the relatively simple task of digitally hitting accurate time intervals with the extremely difficult task of accurately capturing complex analog sound is well... ludicrous

Originally Posted by Fran Guidry

But even though fancy expensive watches don't keep time any better than a $2.00 digital watch, they do serve a purpose - signalling the status of the owner.

Brauner and Lucas and vintage Neumann mics do the same thing for a studio owner.

Fran

The equally absurd analogy to the above would be. Since those fancy Martins and Taylors in reality don't have any more strings or play any more notes than my 1971 Yamaha, they simply signal the status of the owner.

Perhaps your crusade to have moderate priced gear be "Just as good" or perceptually indistinguishable from high end gear is clouding your objectivity .

Contrary to your "imagination" nobody has even come remotely close to suggesting someone can "purchase" expertise skill or experience. Or that price automatically equals "Better".

And bluntly speaking the implied notion that studio owners only reason for owning high end mics is status or customer demand is little more than agenda driven wishful thinking. The pros that I know personally in California, Denver, Nashville and NYC use the best tool for the job period. Interestingly with rare exception, the best tool is more often than not, those "status only" high end mics. But what do they know ?. Humm ?

And the idiom that a beginner needs to "Saved" from purchasing gear that may be beyond their current skill level to fully utilise, smacks a bit of arrogance. Just exactly what is wrong with someone purchasing the best gear they can afford ( best being determined by personally auditioning of course ) OK I'm done ranting.

And finally on a respectful personal note Fran. You have in other posts alluded to having typical old age hearing. If so and if you are not using hearing aids to get back those lost frequencies, how much might that fact play into your personal inability to here subtle but present differences between moderate and high end? Trust me if this is case, you really do not know (hear) what you are missing.

[Fran Guidry]

Kev, it's definitely true that I'm an old fogey with damaged hearing. That's one reason I post clips for other people's comments.

Perhaps you have a couple of same performance clips that demonstrate how significant a change in mic or preamp is. Maybe something that makes it obvious how and why a $2000 mic results in a better recording than a $200 mic.

Fran

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Fran Guidry

Kev, it's definitely true that I'm an old fogey with damaged hearing. That's one reason I post clips for other people's comments.

Perhaps you have a couple of same performance clips that demonstrate how significant a change in mic or preamp is. Maybe something that makes it obvious how and why a $2000 mic results in a better recording than a $200 mic.

Fran

Fran, I unfortunately do not have such a recording/s. If buy some chance in the next few weeks I get some time, I could try to make one. Which given the opportunity schedule wise, I would be willing to do.


In the mean time. In the above situation ( a $200 mic and a $2000 mic) what do you think ? Do you think that in general, the old adage "you get what you pay for" would or would not apply? Understanding of course that there are always exceptions and the terms "significant" and "better" are in fact subjective. But I am curious as to what your expectations would be.

I realize you are a big proponent of " Blind" testing. Wich can certainly be a valid approach in all kinds of tests. And is proffered as the cure to eliminating "Expectation Bias"..... But is it really the be all to end all written in stone unassailable truth, that many with science as their hallmark espouse? Particularly in this exact situation. Perhaps not.

Consider this: Expectation Bias in this particular case is in reality a two way street. So lets call buyer justification (the expectation that more money equals better ) positive expectation. And lets call the desire to believe that (money does not equal better) negative expectation . What this means in this type of Blind or even Double Blind process is the simple fact that, while it's pretty much impossible to maintain and be accurate with the positive (if the difference isn't actually there sonically), It is however unfortunately extremely easy to maintain and be accurate with negative (even if the difference is actually sonically there) . Because all the test subject has to do is expect not to, and then through negative expectation bias simply not hear, a difference. In other words in this situation it is pretty much impossible to disprove a negative.